Intellectually, Donald Trump is microscopically small, but he will have a big impact on conservative politics for years to come, due to the large number of unprincipled conservatives who sold out to his progressive populist cult of personality. Many of the biggest names on the Right have disgraced themselves to the point that it is hard to imagine they will have any future after the blowout we all know is coming in November (Trump is losing in every swingstate).

Sean Hannity and Mike Gallagher may skate by with the excuse that they didn’t know any better, but it is very clear that brighter bulbs like Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager know exactly what they sold their souls to crawl into bed with.

The worst of the lot is Rush Limbaugh, who openly acknowledged long ago that Ted Cruz was the conservative candidate, yet who has been defending Trump and attacking his critics from early on, for fear of alienating part of his audience. Once Trump had secured the nomination, El Rushbo threw his pro-Trump spin into overdrive, well beyond the point of insulting the intelligence of his audience.

Members of that audience who are not drunk on orange Kool-Aid are fed up, as this call attests:

No one is as influential as Rush pretends to be, but he did have enough stature that he could have derailed the Trump Train back when it would have caused minimal damage to the GOP, the conservative cause, and the country in general. An electable nominee could have been chosen to stop Shrillary. Instead he treated Trump like a legitimate candidate and encouraged listeners to believe his promises, knowing all along that The Donald is a frivolous fraud, as he admits in the audio above.

Having a contract to renew, Rush put his short-term career considerations ahead of all other concerns. Consequently, his influence in the future will be minimal.

An excellent piece laying out the case against ever again taking Maha Rushie even half seriously includes this interesting observation:

The poetic justice in all this is that some of the movement conservative intellectuals who surely feel angry at the consequences of the host’s inexcusable betrayal never took Limbaugh totally seriously, but never shared that publicly either. They empowered Rush Limbaugh just as Limbaugh empowered Donald Trump.

When Trump crashes and burns in November, he will not go down alone. That isn’t entirely a bad thing.

It’s not that they think they are necessarily smarter, they think they have more integrity. Everything Trump does (and now apparently Rush) is being analyzed as a “gotcha” moment – like this one thing will change the whole spectrum of Trump’s campaign. Well, there are more than one issue that Trump blows Hillary away on and the moderates will give Trump more leeway than the so-called “conservatives” because they want more legalization.

No sense in getting too analytical until after Trump’s speech tomorrow in Arizona.

A new poll shows most Republicans appear to regret nominating Donald TrumpSad!
A majority of Republicans now want a do-over.

A new poll by the Huffington Post and YouGov shows that 54 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning voters now say that Donald Trump was not the best choice for the GOP nomination, up from 44 percent in June. Meanwhile, the number of Republican voters who say Trump was the best option fell from 44 to 35 percent.

The findings likely reflect Trump’s abysmal performance in the polls. According to RealClearPolitics’ poll average, Clinton currently holds a 5-point lead over Trump — a very big margin in presidential polling. It wasn’t supposed to be this way: Vox’s political science model found that the election favored Republicans after eight years of a Democrat in the White House, yet Trump is polling about 4.9 points behind where he should be as of Tuesday.

Since winning the nomination, Trump has been mired in disaster after political disaster. He’s been repeatedly accused of racism, including by members of his own party when he said a judge should recuse himself from a Trump University case due to his Mexican heritage. He suggested that Megyn Kelly asked him tough questions at a debate because she was on her period. He insulted the Muslim family of a fallen US soldier after the soldier’s parents criticized his proposal to ban Muslims from entering America. He’s been caught lying repeatedly, including about whether he opposed the war in Iraq. (He didn’t.) (Vox’s Ezra Klein has a good breakdown of all of these controversies.)

Sean Hannity’s TrumperTantrum: Now blaming Glenn Beck for Trump losing like a dog
Sean Hannity continues melting down and blaming the “Never Trump” movement that he used to say was completely irrelevant and miniscule.

Today he targeted Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg in a childish Trumpy rant:

“Well, let me just say to all of you. And that includes the commentator class. That includes the Jonah Goldberg class, that includes radio talk show hosts. Glenn Beck is like on a — it’s a holy war for him at this point. I mean, he’s off the rails attacking me every day. Blaming me for Trump. Well, no. I was fair to everybody, Glenn. Whether you want to admit it or not. I know I was fair. My conscience is clear. And I, frankly, I’m proud to pull the lever for Donald Trump with a clear conscience.

Except he’s full of it, as we proved by analyzing the guests he had on his show here. Hannity was pushing Trump and everyone saw it.

The Trump campaign has a ground-game problem
As the presidential election marathon breaks into a final sprint, the Trump campaign faces a jaw-dropping gap in the ground game: Hillary Clinton currently has more than three times the number of campaign offices in critical states than does Donald Trump.

The contrast is a test for the conventional campaign model and points to the candidates’ stark differences in methods. Clinton is cleaving to the data-driven, on-the-ground machine that won two elections for Barack Obama. Trump, on the other hand, insists he does not need traditional campaign tactics to win the election, pointing to his overwhelming nomination victory achieved with a relatively small team and little spending.

Nevertheless, the ground game is poised to be critical in 2016. Undecided voters are becoming scarce, and targeted turnout may be the deciding factor on Nov. 8. That usually requires field offices with phone banks, organized volunteers and a coordinated effort to knock on doors and get people to the polls.

As of Aug. 30, Hillary Clinton has 291 offices in those 15 battlegrounds. Donald Trump has 88. (Those figures include joint presidential and party offices.) Both campaigns pledge that more offices are coming.

Oh goody! A new source – Vox! Odd, there’s a few conservative sites that call out Vox as liberal…? Well anyway, let’s see how non partisan they are today:

Well, here’s a pleasant story about Hillary:

Van Jones on the staggering political challenges Hillary Clinton would face as president

Now what about Trump?

9 days, 11 positions: Donald Trump’s spectacular immigration flameout
What do black people like me have to lose if Trump wins? Everything.
What I learned about Trumpism from reading 50 Breitbart articles about immigration
A new poll shows most Republicans appear to regret nominating Donald Trump
Paul Manafort’s resignation shows Trump’s problem is Trump
CNN tells Trump adviser he’s losing: “Says who?” “Polls.” “Which polls?” “All of them.”
You can’t explain Trump’s conservative media appeal without talking about race
Breitbart, explained: the conservative media giant that wants Trump to burn down the GOP
The Trump campaign just admitted one of the scariest things about its candidate
How President Donald Trump could ruin his enemies’ lives

Now PBS – that’s a non-partisan news source. Let’s run down the stories Newshour has done previously:

Ooh, lots more Hillary stories than most:

Column: Don’t be fooled. Clinton and Democrats have their own race problem
What to watch for in Hillary Clinton’s big speech
For delegates witnessing Hillary Clinton’s historic moment, emotions run the gamut
Sanders supporters walk off convention floor, blame ‘rigged system’ for his loss
Convention delegates want to know if Clinton would mirror Obama on K-12
Will Bernie Sanders’ speech restore unity after DNC email scandal?
Column: The Democratic Party is not what it seems
Column: The Democrats must be the party of the 99 percent
What you need to know about Clinton’s VP Pick, Tim Kaine

And Trump articles seem to be just a tad more critical:

Trump and Farage’s alliance is more complicated than you think
The Trump campaign has a ground-game problem
Meet some of the Chinese Americans voting for Trump
Column: Trump’s rise is white rage veiled as political strategy
Column: Is Donald Trump losing his party with his rhetoric and leadership style?
Could Evan McMullin’s third-party bid hurt Trump?
A subtle takedown of Donald Trump by Homeland Security’s Jeh Johnson
Pence appears to contradict Trump’s stance on NATO in PBS NewsHour interview
Column: Republicans, it’s time to move beyond the platform of Reagan
Column: The Republican Party needs to revisit its first principles
Is the RNC Trump’s last big chance to recast himself?

Channeling your Psychic Friends? So be it…I’ll play along. No, I won’t place 100% of the blame yadda yadda yadda. I will just place blame on the difference between how many votes Hillary got minus how many votes Trump got plus one. After all, so-called “conservatives” haven’t learned from the past two elections that all-or-nothing ends up with nothing. They twice haven’t “conserved” all of those important liberties and rights via the elections of Barack Obama.

“Channeling your Psychic Friends?” You talk about hatred. Is it that hard to answer a simple question?

Ok you realize of course that popular vote does not elect a president. So tallying raw number to place blame wont work. What will elect Trump or not are swing states. If he loses NC then he has almost no shot at winning. Hitlery is already at 230ish electoral votes. She would only need to pick up a couple of states such as Pennsylvania or Ohio to win it. So if you cannot place blame on Trump being a crappy candidate then place blame on the swing state that didnt swing in his favor. That would be appropriate.

In reality, though the complexity of it will escape your sophomoric political naivety, Conservative haven’t voted for the other Progressive candidates, McCain and Romney.

The 12 M Democrats who elected tRump won’t be there in Nov. and he will lose. That you are an imbecile who cannot admit their mistake is obvious. That you smug and arrogant about it tells us who you really are, progtard.

A shame you have no principles except evil, but then, Progressives never do.

Impressive. You sure know your voting stuff. Oh well, it sounded funny in my head to do the math. I guess where I’m really going is that you aren’t content to “let Trump lose on his own”, so you are helping make sure you meet your Hillary goal so I can’t come back and zing you for saying “Hillary has already won”.

” In January of this year, Lynn Vavreck noted today,a generic Republican led a generic Democrat by seven points, 46/39. Today that number is upside down, with the generic Democrat ahead by eight, 44/36. If a Clinton victory is the fault of #NeverTrumpers, why isn’t that generic-ballot reversal the fault of Trump apologists in talk radio? They could have had a competitive race this fall, but evidently they didn’t care enough about that in the spring to risk getting on the wrong side of their populist audiences.”

I challenge you on the battlefield mano a mano to a duel with .50 caliber fully automatic weapons. 1,000 rounds each. That’s of course if you escape or they release you from ADX Florence. Say hello to Ted Kaczynski!

I tossed Rush onto the refuse heap months ago to join Trumpbart, The Sludge Report, The Gateway Pundit, & Faux News just to name a few of Trump’s other pseudo-conservative Super Pacs.
I was never a reader of the National Enquirer, that’s why I didn’t mention them, but I’ll give ’em a hat tip here.

Why should I be responsible for cleaning up your mess for electing a N.Y.C. Progressive Democrat con man who added an R to his name who has trouble completing a single coherent sentence? If you wanted to stop Hillary why did you nominate the Only one in the field with the best chance to lose against her? You actual Trump supporters are only at 40% the other 60% that are voting for Trump are actually only voting against Hillary not for him! What a damned joke this election is!

Another irrational “Donald Trump is a progressive” anti-Trump Hillary-enabler who doesn’t know that he/she is talking about.

If you wanted to nominate a conservative, why did you make it Ted Cruz who lied, alienated colleagues and burned bridges along the way? Why are you attacking the only viable candidate capable of stopping her? Your selective indignation is very interesting…

Yeah…just keep tossing conservative icons on to the refuse heap because of your selective indignation. That will leave you more time to spend with the conservative “winners” like Ted Cruz. So-called “conservative” ideologues haven’t learned their all-or-nothing approach consistently leaves them with nothing.

Cruz lied? No he did not! That`s lyin` Donald that told you that BS along with his deportations and Wall which has turned out to be BS now also, and YOU believed it! Cruz alienated colleagues? So calling out the lying Progressive frauds in the GOP for who they are was a bad thing for him to do? Donald Trump if elected will get along just dandy with those Republican Progressives who hate Cruz, after all Trump is a Big Government Democrat Progressive himself! P.T. Barnum is rolling in his grave with envy of Trump!

Let me get this straight…the original Cruz Control says “You actually believe you’re smarter than…” and you reply “No one here has said that.” and then say “We are just smarter than you” which is exactly what you just denied people here believed? This could be the textbook example of “contradiction” listed in the dictionary.

ROTFLMAO! None of your ridiculous bullshit has made any difference except to drive support away from your cult leader. He is losing the race because he is an asshole, just as you are losing support for him because you are an asshole.

This is going to be one hell of a shooting war you have started little shitbag. At last, we will be rid of you fascist Progressives, once and for all. You assholes outlived your welcome a century ago, well past time to be rid of you.

Umm, douche bag, If HE said it, does mean anyone else here has said it. You and your alter-ego are so programmed to use strawman arguments you cannot even tell what is real and what isn’t.

What he(you) said was that we think we are smarter than Rush, et al. Him(you)saying it does not make it true, you fucking retard. The FACT that we said tRump couldn’t win and that he is losing proves we are smarter than you, period.

And fucking Progressive R retards haven’t figured out that nominating Progressive candidates in the Republican Party is a losing proposition. After Romney and McCain, one would think you fucktards would get a clue.

Go nominate your Progressive filth in the Democrat Party where you belong. Moron.

Conversely, it must be okay for you that Ted Cruz was true 6% of the time, mostly true 16% of the time, half true 13% of the time, mostly false 31% of the time, false 27% of the time, and pants on fire 7% of the time. Ted Cruz the conservative idcon was even a crappier “uniter” than Trump. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/

The reason I ask is because I support Trump and yet the anti-Trump people here claim that I, and other Trump supporters like me, are driving away other Trump supporters. Would you say that was a fair assessment, or that the Moonbattery anti-Trump climate is driving people away?

Well here is Trumps numbers from your web site. His True % is lower, Mostly True % is lower, Half True % is a tad higher, Mostly False % is lower, but now get this… Trumps false and Pants on Fire % are much higher than Cruz

Why so modest? You’ve contributed greatly! Support for a failed conservative, declaring the GOP needs to die, attacking the republican candidate, assisting Hillary for your “cause”…take a bow for your hard work and dedication!

I can say the same for you. You have contributed to turning people against Trump that may have been on the fence. You have turned him off completely for me. I was considering holding my nose until i experienced first hand Trumpian cultists. You do him no favors with your hillary-enabling traitor rhetoric. Hint: it turns people off to your boy. So please take your bow.

Funny – I thought somebody asked me to prove that Ted Cruz was a liar – not to defend Trump. But fine, I’ll play along. Cruz was truthful / lied less than Trump. Why not go all the way? This shows that Hillary lies the least – so she should be president, right?

Yep…I’m not telling you anything personal, as it is irrelevant. Somehow I couldn’t fathom how “my” single vote would cause your so-called “disaster” anyway – but you nevertheless want it to happen so that Hillary is elected, so spare me the doom-and-gloom label of what your goal is.

Wrong again. The only devotion here is for you to defeat Trump and me to defeat Hillary. “Everybody knows Hillary is a liar” and yet the chart says she lies the least. How do you reconcile that conundrum?

Funny…I’m not the one on a so-called “conservative” website trying to foment indifference (or worse) for the republican candidate for Hillary’s benefit – that would be you. You are the one actively working towards the “disaster” you decry but actually want to happen.

Trump/Hitlery will not foster return of rule of law and liberty. Instead we are stuck with 4 progressives to vote for in Nov. Vote for the lesser of evils or do not vote evil at all. You have that choice.

In no circumstance do we want hitlery to be president but with the nomination of Trump, that is inevitable now.

Funny…you were the one who brought out the Cruz chart – I just took it to the next logical step, which of course you dodged the question: “This shows that Hillary lies the least – so she should be president, right?”

You either believe the charts in which case you should vote hillary or your charts are full of shit, which one is it?

“Funny…you were the one who brought out the Cruz ” Good observation of you. So do you believe the charts or not?

“This shows that Hillary lies the least – so she should be president, right?” I answered that question: “Everybody knows Hillary is a liar” Therefore your charts must be full of shit. So find more charts showing that Cruz is a bigger liar than Trump ok?

So let me get this straight – you think that because Trump lies a few percentage points more than Cruz, that it somehow disqualifies Trump from being the candidate? Laughable! Your boy Cruz was both a liar and a loser.

And what’s all this “my charts” stuff? Cry about it to Politifact – I just put their scorecards together for easy comparison.

Several things. 1st is time line which you are being disingenuous about. I was considering holding my nose until i came in contact with you and your hillary-enabling rhetoric. That turned me off to Trump.

“but told me long ago:” Exactly! timeline genius.

How are these mutually exclusive? I can hold my nose, vote Trump knowing he is a turd, but still think hillary will win.

You intentionally mix and mash up things to cast a situation the way you want to see it.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend is an ancient proverb
which suggests that two opposing parties can or should work together against a common enemy. The earliest known expression of this concept is found in a Sanskrit treatise on statecraft dating to around the 4th century BC, while the first recorded use of the current English version came in 1884

AND

In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) is the third of the three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true.

The law is also known as the law (or principle) of the excluded third, in Latin principium tertii exclusi. Another Latin designation for this law is tertium non datur: “no third (possibility) is given”.

You are trying to make a point that Trump is not a huge liar. Your charts are obviously flawed if they show hitlery does not lie at all, therefore find new charts to support your assertion that Trump is a mediocre liar.

TrojanMan: If the republicans have already lost by nominating Trump as you have said what would the purpose TO vote for him? Not voting Trump would send a clear message to the GOP we are tired or progressive RINO candidates. http://moonbattery.com/?p=75040#comment-2831663771

TrojanMan: Trump and his minions are the punishers. Trump threatening other republicans with primary challenges, real party unity there. I do not want to punish Trump. I just do not want him to be president nor Hitlery. Simple…… http://moonbattery.com/?p=75114#comment-2833872680

The Trump campaign has a ground-game problem
As the presidential election marathon breaks into a final sprint, the Trump campaign faces a jaw-dropping gap in the ground game: Hillary Clinton currently has more than three times the number of campaign offices in critical states than does Donald Trump.

The contrast is a test for the conventional campaign model and points to the candidates’ stark differences in methods. Clinton is cleaving to the data-driven, on-the-ground machine that won two elections for Barack Obama. Trump, on the other hand, insists he does not need traditional campaign tactics to win the election, pointing to his overwhelming nomination victory achieved with a relatively small team and little spending.

Nevertheless, the ground game is poised to be critical in 2016. Undecided voters are becoming scarce, and targeted turnout may be the deciding factor on Nov. 8. That usually requires field offices with phone banks, organized volunteers and a coordinated effort to knock on doors and get people to the polls.

As of Aug. 30, Hillary Clinton has 291 offices in those 15 battlegrounds. Donald Trump has 88. (Those figures include joint presidential and party offices.) Both campaigns pledge that more offices are coming.

Ah yes, the infamous “Be sure to include plenty EXCERPTS and Links in your answer.” demands from Torcer – you should get that trademarked. You’d almost believe it thinks it runs this site. How is your so-called “candidate” Evan McMullin doing with his ground game or debate prep? Nevermind, we all know that was a phony “endorsement”. Getting Hillary elected is your goal – you are just shy about your reasons why. The others at least own up to the fact that they want the country “cleansed” of progressive-liberal-socialism…but not you for some reason. You just continue to attack Trump while tacitly suggesting a Hillary story or two here or there so that you can’t be accused of “only” attacking Trump.

Sure “it” does – but how about this little ditty that has yet to be responded to:

Oh yes…the “Trump lies” defense. So all these sites were duped by Trump and he is supposedly going to be as bad as Hillary. Gotcha. Boy, that excuse sure is convenient, isn’t it? So to summarize TrojanMan’s positions:

1. The GOP is dead / needs to die
2. Hillary has already been elected
3. Trump lies so nothing can be determined about him
4. Trump is a “progressive” because of democrat donations and #3
5. Trump will lose on his own, but TrojanMan is still compelled to attack him anyway just to make sure
6. A Hillary presidency wouldn’t be any worse than a Trump presidency
7. A Hillary presidency is the goal so that it will ignite a conservative uprising to reset the country back to the good ol’ days.

A good point – why can’t conservatives come up with a quality candidate? But “unarguably?” Ronald Reagan would hardly be called a conservative nowadays:

Nearly tripled the deficit
Gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants
Raised the debt ceiling 18 times
Expanded gun sale background checks and an assault weapon ban
Signed at least 5 tax increases (Alan Simpson says 11 times)
Increased the Social Security tax rate
Unemployment reached 10.8%
Appointed liberal justice Anthony Kennedy
Had “issues” with Israel
Bailed out Social Security for $165 billion
Was a union leader in the Screen Actors Guild
Negotiated with and armed terrorists in the Iran-Contra Affair

Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !ic757t:
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!ic757t:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash1007NetworkInsiderGetPay$97Hour… ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!ic757t:….,……..

You forgot to mention that the Reagan tax cuts- something no Democrat since Kennedy has embraced- also doubled revenue to the Federal government. It was Congress, which was almost continually under Democrat control, that increased spending even faster than revenue increased. Reagan went along with it because Congress did go along with his defense spending increases- which won the Cold War.

While he did grant Amnesty, that was only part of the deal. The other half was to secure the borders and control immigration. Congress, under Democrat control, gleefully accepted the Amnesty and then reneged on securing the borders.

Debt ceiling_ same explanation as on taxes; he got the defense spending levels necessary to defeat the Soviet Union and end the Cold War.

But on your first point, I do have to agree with you and wonder the same thing myself. In fact, I’d extend this to both partys: in a country of 320 million, these two are the best we can get? REALLY?

I was in a hurry and didn’t have time to disrespect you in the manner you so richly deserve. As a paid political hack, you use so many different screen names to pretend you are more than you really are, up vote your babbling drivel and “support” your primary screen name, I thought I’d play that game with you as well. Besides, I enjoy having you block as many of my screen names as possible and now you’ll have to do it for your alias’s as well.

I didn’t “forget” anything – my point was that conservative icon Ronald Reagan did many un-conservative things. Tax cuts shouldn’t mean an automatic “conservative” label when taking into consideration all of the un-conservative things Reagan did – whether or not is was them means to an end. On paper, Reagan and Trump look fairly similar.

“Cherry-picking”? Are you kidding? Those are all major conservative issues that Reagan faltered on. As I said, Reagan on paper doesn’t look like a conservative icon regardless of your “historic context”. The left loves to write articles about now un-conservative Reagan was.

InsideGov.com rates Reagan #2 most conservative – second to George W. Bush who is regarded a moderate conservative.

Example: if all one knows about the deficit in the 1980s is that it greatly increased under Ronald Reagan, then one might reasonably conclude that Reagan bore, if not all of the responsibility, at least a major portion of it, and so, if he bore that responsibility, it was an “un-conservative” aspect of his Presidency.

But that it, of course, not the whole story. Once you know that revenue to the Federal government also increased dramatically- as it has every single time tax cuts have been implemented- and that Reagan decided that increases in Democrat pet domestic programs were worth making if he could get larger increases in defense spending so that he could, with the invaluable assistance of Lady Margaret Thatcher in England and Pope John Paul I, cause the Berlin Wall to be torn down and ensure the fall of the Soviet Union. The historic context provide facts which radically alter your thinly-proofed assertion that Reagan did “un-conservative” things.

But, for the sake of argument, if I were to do so, it would be done knowing full well that I was not electing a “conservative” President. He has never been a conservative and pretended to be only to dupe those who either are incapable or uninteresting in knowing the truth.

As for the rest…still no context because you know that context disproves your argument.

Okay…Hillary it is for you then. And InsideGov doesn’t share your opinion on Trump, as their evaluation places him as a moderate conservative except for Defense and International issues where they consider him slightly liberal. This graph compares him to Hillary (who is extremely liberal) and Mitt Romney (who is more conservative).

I should also have included this response when commenting on your studious lack of context in your assertions regarding Reagan.

Would you say that a person who pushes little old ladies in general and a person who pushes little old ladies out of the way of an oncoming bus are the same or different?

Well, both individuals do push little old ladies, but one has a selfish motive for doing so and the other a selfless motive for doing so, which is a distinction that cannot be drawn unless one provides context.

Raising taxes and raising the debt ceiling repeatedly would, indeed, sound like something a conservative would not favor doing…unless you know the motive in taking such steps. And the only way to know what the motive is or was is to provide….context!

I believe that Hillary is extremely liberal…but that’s my opinion and I like to have various others to back me up. But at least you are conceding that Trump is at least a moderate conservative then, right?

You have are your suspicions about Trump, while we have more concrete examples with Hillary. Pardon me if I hope for the best and vote that Trump will do more conservative things than Hillary will do that are progressive-liberal-socialist. Or do you have a problem with voting for the most viable right-wing / conservative candidate?

All I have is Trump’s word- until he changes it- that he will govern center-right. Given that he changes positions on a very frequent basis- sometimes in the same speech!- I have zero reason to trust him.

I intend not to vote for President at all- a first in the 32 years I’ve been eligible to vote- and give my support to downballot candidates who are, without question, conservatives (Jeff Sessions, for instance, who happens to be my Senator). In that manner, I would hope those who do represent my views can act as a check on the Progressive agenda of a Hillary Clinton or of a Donald Trump.

Yean…smart move. It will be the third time the democrats win in a row – and Obama was such a resounding success that Hillary is sure to make it even better. It makes perfect sense – unless you are a conservative. You can look forward to:

If you disagree with the conclusions of the first website you cited as to Clinton being “moderately Liberal”, why, then, are you so eager to agree with the same site’s conclusion that Trump is “moderately Conservative”?

As for the Washington Post’s piece…what is truly amazing is that Trump won the nomination having so many of the same policy positions as Hillary Clinton.

Sorry, if you are going to question my answers, then I am going to point out how you “didn’t answer my question directly”:

If Trump said he would do these things, would you elect him as a “conservative” president?

Or do you have a problem with voting for the most viable right-wing / conservative candidate?

How about this one from the Washington Post – are you going to dismiss it because it is left-wing news?

If you believe that Trump and Hillary are politically equivalent, then there is little I can do to combat your anti-Trump hatred. I’ve provided sources, you’ve provided squat except for your “feelings” similar to your garden-variety liberal. So feel free to follow the path of the so-called “conservatives” that didn’t elect McCain and didn’t elect Romney so that the end result was the country moving faster and a farther shift leftward than if the so-called “conservatives” actually voted to conserve rights and liberties instead of handing them over to Obama.

The principles will be sacrificed more if Hillary is not defeated. Under Obama, we have quickened our shift leftward even with the republican majorities. Punishing the country for Trump doesn’t exactly put the “conserve” (of rights and liberties) in conservative.

You don’t know what I believe and what I don’t. I liken it to a political version of “Pascal’s wager”: the argument that it is in one’s own best interest to behave as if God exists, since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage of believing otherwise. Supporting Trump far outweighs the alternative.

You are prepared to risk the future of this country on the pronouncements of an individual who has espoused practically every single viewpoint on every single issue over not just the past decades but the past days. You believe that a man who is approaching 70 years old and held not merely liberal views on most issues for his entire adult life- more than 50 years- but most of those positions were ultra-liberal had a sudden change of heart and became a Reagan-esque conservative champion…just in time to run for President as a Republican.

So, to paraphrase “Pascal’s Wager”, your argument is that it is in one’s own interest to believe Trump is a conservative, since the possibility of the country’s ruination if her opponent is elected- even if that possibility may be only ever-so-slightly less if Trump wins- outweighs any advantage in believing otherwise.

Yours is the higher risk emotionally based upon your “suspicions”. A Hillary presidency will flood the country with illegal immigrants and your ideal conservative candidates won’t have a chance of being elected. We hope Trump will keep his promises but we know Hillary will keep hers.